On 04/19/2010 05:02 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > However this agreement doesn't seem to put any minimum requirements for > the "free" licenses listed at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing . > Without that we are just trusting on faith that that list will in fact > list licenses that contributors think are "free". The thought was that there was a accepted meaning of "Free License", but I can see how that might not be the case. We meant Free as in FSF. > What happens in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing is changed in error > or by someone not authorized to make a change? That page is locked down tight. Only members of Fedora Legal can change it, and that group is a very very controlled set of people. It (and the Legal: and Packaging: namespace) are pretty much the only wiki pages which are ACL restricted. > So perhaps there are a few ways that the license could be changed to a > nonfree license? Over my dead body. However, perhaps it would be worthwhile to define a "Free license" in the FPCA to remove all doubt. ~spot _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
